The paradox of predictability provides a bridge between micro- and macroevolution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relationship between the evolutionary dynamics observed in contemporary populations (microevolution) and evolution on timescales of millions of years (macroevolution) has been a topic of considerable debate. Historically, this debate centers on inconsistencies between microevolutionary processes and macroevolutionary patterns. Here, we characterize a striking exception: emerging evidence indicates that standing variation in contemporary populations and macroevolutionary rates of phenotypic divergence is often positively correlated. This apparent consistency between micro- and macroevolution is paradoxical because it contradicts our previous understanding of phenotypic evolution and is so far unexplained. Here, we explore the prospects for bridging evolutionary timescales through an examination of this "paradox of predictability." We begin by explaining why the divergence-variance correlation is a paradox, followed by data analysis to show that the correlation is a general phenomenon across a broad range of temporal scales, from a few generations to tens of millions of years. Then we review complementary approaches from quantitative genetics, comparative morphology, evo-devo, and paleontology to argue that they can help to address the paradox from the shared vantage point of recent work on evolvability. In conclusion, we recommend a methodological orientation that combines different kinds of short-term and long-term data using multiple analytical frameworks in an interdisciplinary research program. Such a program will increase our general understanding of how evolution works within and across timescales.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".